3-1 There is a vestigial survival of this superstition even today. We applaud the name of a person as a mark of approval or praise, and hiss his name to express our opposition and hatred, unconsciously believing that these manifestations will have their desired homeopathic effect.

3-29Encyclopædia Biblica, p. 3320: "The special importance attaching to the names of gods in the Old Testament, and the emphasis often laid on their significance, finds a partial explanation in the peculiar emphasis with which the word name itself is there employed. The name of a person or thing was for the Hebrew not simply distinctive; it was a revelation of the nature of the person or thing named, nay, often almost an equivalent for the thing itself. This is especially true of the names of God."

3-34 A survival of the fear of mentioning God's name is in the superstition of saying "for goodness' sake" instead of "for God's sake," as well as "thank goodness" when in reality the person wants to say "thank God." The avoidance of the use of the word "God" is prompted by the fear of the taboo of mentioning the name of the Deity which forms the basis of this Commandment.

3-37Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 202. This hymn reminds me of the sermon at the funeral of Mrs. Murphy's husband. During the funeral oration the priest was quite fulsome in his praise of his dead parishioner. He said that he had been a good and kind husband, a loving father, a man of high moral conduct, honest in his dealings, and upright in his undertakings, etc. As the priest continued to praise the virtues of the dear departed, Mrs. Murphy, who had been abused all her life, and whose children had often been brutally beaten by their father, nudged her eldest child and said, "Bridget, go see who is in that coffin; that can't be your father the priest is talking about."

3-44 Hastings, Encyclopædia, p. 163. There is a survival of this primitive and superstitious custom today in what is known as the "last rites" administered by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what the character of the person was, a devout believer in the religion would much prefer to send for a priest to administer the last rites, if he thought he was about to die, than for a physician who might be able to save him. This is so well known that physicians whose Catholic patients are critically ill, inform the family so as to enable them to send for a priest before death overtakes the patient. This is but another instance of the persistence of religious ignorance and superstitious fear.

3-50Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 547. Amulets were widely used by the superstitious Hebrew, mostly consisting of the name of the supposed God inscribed upon an article and worn to ward off evil. Some had a transposition of the name of the Hebrew Deity written on paper or engraved on plates. These were used to put robbers to flight, to calm the sea, to protect cattle, to cure disease, to catch fish, to secure and retain the love of a woman. Soldiers even wore them in battle. If, however, one was thrown upon a man, it would kill him

3-72 The superstitious basis of Judaism was carried over into Christianity and became the very foundation of the Christian religion. The same miraculous results that were supposed to be accomplished by invoking the name of the Hebrew Deity, it was claimed, could be duplicated by the mystical use of the name of Jesus, the Saviour. Just as rewards were to follow the faithful performance of the covenants and Commandments of the Old Testament God, so all good was promised -- "If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." (John, Chapter 12, verse 28.) The use of the name of Jesus in the domain of exorcism and to cure disease is directly attributed to the power supposed to be inherent in his name. Throughout the New Testament there are innumerable passages relative to this superstitious belief. Christian Science is based on this delusion. See Matthew 7: 22; 18: 20; 28: 19; Mark 16: 17; Luke 17: 17-20; John 3: 18; 10: 25; 12: 28; 14: 13. See also Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 5. p. 306.

3-78 Unless Moses was preparing for an act of deception, this was a perfectly legitimate question to ask of God, and the answer should have been prompt and straightforward.

3-79 There is an interesting legend in connection with the magic rod of Moses and the name of the Deity. The Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p. 5) tells us that Jethro planted the rod in his garden, where its miraculous virtue was revealed by the fact that nobody could withdraw it from the ground, even to touch it being fraught with danger to life. This was because the Ineffable Name of God was engraved on it. When Moses entered Jethro's household, he read the Name and, by means of it, was able to draw up the rod, for which service Zipporah, Jethro's daughter, was given to him in marriage. This rod, according to Jewish tradition, was in David's possession, and with its help he slew Goliath. David left it to his descendants, but with the destruction of the Temple it miraculously disappeared!

3-105 According to R. Hiyya, "the rend of garments was no longer required after the fall of the temple," having been superseded by this dictum: "He who hears blasphemy nowadays is not obliged to rend garments, because otherwise his garments would be nothing but tatters." Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 237.

3-135 Because the Hebrews refused, as a specific observance of this Commandment, to invoke the name of God when required to do so in a court of law, they were regarded with suspicion. This contributed to intensifying the prejudice already incurred by their observance of the Second Commandment, and aggravated the anti-Semitic attitude already grown to menacing proportions. Hastings, Encyclopædia, Vol. 5, p. 434.

3-136 The following is a good illustration: "A witness was being sworn. The judge noticed that he was not holding up his right hand. He said to the clerk, 'Let the witness hold up his right hand.' 'His right arm was cut off,' replied the clerk. 'Let him hold up his left, then.' 'That was shot off, your Honor.' 'Well, then let him raise one foot; no man can be sworn in this court without holding something up. "' Hastings, Encyclopædia, Vol. 5, p. 315.

3-144 Westermarck, Morals, p. 120. In London only recently an instance of this superstitious belief in sympathetic magic in relation to oath-taking was provided when some Chinese sailor insisted on taking an oath by cutting a rooster's throat or breaking a saucer, while saying: "As this saucer is broken, so may my soul be shattered if I do not tell the truth." New York Times, Sept. 24, 1942.